In this revision petition there is challenge to order dated 20.4.21012, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur (for short, tate Commission vide which appeal of the petitioner/complainant against order dated 20.11.2008, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amravati (for short, istrict Forum in complaint case no. 226 of 2008, was dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that petitioner purchased a Truck (registration No. MH-27/X-638) valued Rs.7,32,847/- on 30.11.2006, with finance of Rs.6,50,000/- from Respondent/O.P. No. 1, which was to be repaid in 46 monthly installments and cheques for repayment were also given to the said Bank. It is further stated that repayment was done continuously up to September, 2007. During that period, the said vehicle met with an accident on 16.3.2007. For the purpose of repair, the vehicle was handed over to respondent no. 2 on 24.3.2007. Respondent No.1, without giving any intimation seized the vehicle from custody of respondent no. 2, on 4.6.2007. Afterwards without giving any intimation before or after sale, the vehicle was sold in December, 2007. Therefore, petitioner served notices to the respondents and the complaint for commercial loss of Rs. 3,70,000/- @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, expenses of Rs.2,87,000/- on the vehicle and the cost of vehicle Rs.3,00,000/- after end of repayment and Rs. 42,757/- as mental and physical torture, totaling to Rs.10,00,000/- and the interest on the same @ 18% and the court case expenses, was filed. 3. Respondent No.1 in its reply stated that the complaint is false. It is alleged that the complainant was defaulter, as out of 9 cheques presented for payment, 4 cheques were passed, whereas remaining cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, vehicle was seized as petitioner did not pay the loan amount despite repeated requests. Though petitioner has alleged that the vehicle was given in the custody of respondent no.2 for repairs but it was not given for repairs. Intimation was sent to the petitioner before sale of the vehicle but he has not taken any step for repayment. Therefore, respondent no.1 started the process for sale of vehicle by getting approximate valuation from the experts. Accordingly, the vehicle was sold for Rs. 3,56,000/- and respondent no.1 credited the sale price in the account of the petitioner and intimated him accordingly. Hence, there is no fault in the service. 4. Respondent no. 2, it its reply has stated that the repairs was not done as expenses were not paid and the vehicle was lying as it is, therefore, they demanded the expenses for the same. It is further stated that there is no collusion with the respondent no. 1. 5. District Forum, dismissed the complaint. Operative part of the order reads as under; (1) The complaint is rejected with fine. (2) Under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complainant to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and the cost of Rs.1,000/- out of this Rs. 2,000/- to respondent Bank and Rs. 500/- to respondent no. 2 and cost Rs.700/- and Rs.300/- respectively be paid and the remaining fine of Rs.2,500/- be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed vide the impugned order. 7. On 30.8.2012, present petition came up for hearing before this Commission for the first time. On that date, petitioner was present in person and sought time to argue the matter. Accordingly, matted was adjourned to 24.9.2012. 8. On 24.9.2012, none appeared for the petitioner. However, in the meanwhile, petitioner has sent his written arguments in Hindi by Post, which was received by this Commission on 19.9.2012. In its written arguments amongst other, petitioner has stated that he is unable to appear in person and as such he is sending his written arguments. 9. I have gone through the record and have perused the written arguments. 10. The impugned order reads as under ; Appellant Santosh Aharwar as well as his counsel are absent. Adv. Mr. Vora for the respondent No. 1 and Adv. Mr. Nerkar for the respondent No. 2 are present. On last date also appellant as well as his counsel are absent. There is also application for condonation of delay pending since the year 2009. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay it reflects that there was inordinate delay for more than 105 days and there is no just and reasonable ground to show such delay. Thus, on any count the present appeal deserves to be dismissed in default. Hence, it is dismissed in default. No order as to cost 11. It is well settled that sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay in each case is a question of fact. 12. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; t is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. 13. In .B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Supreme Court has been observed; e hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. 14. Recently, Supreme Court in nshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)has laid down that; t is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras. 15. As apparent from the record, it is clear that petitioner as well as his counsel did not appear before the State Commission for two consecutive dates. Further, as per impugned order no just and reasonable ground has been shown for inordinate delay of more than 105 days. Interestingly, petitioner has not filed before this Commission, copy of the application for condonation of delay, which was filed before the State Commission, which could have thrown some light with regard to reasons seeking condonation of delay. 16. Since, no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner in its application seeking condonation of delay, State Commission was justified in not condoning the delay. I do not find any ambiguity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Thus, there is no jurisdictional or legal error in the impugned order. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 17. Copy of this order be sent to the petitioner.